ad

Labels

Dust Eater Scribometer

About Me

Ronan Cray lives in New York City when he isn't holed up in his writer's shack in rural Pennsylvania. He remains inspired by people and their stories. New York provides ample inspiration for both. Torn between meeting new people and staying home on the couch, he channels this conflict into his work. The result... you decide.

With the exception of the Grand Hyatt in Taipei , this weekend marked the first time I knowingly stayed in a haunted hotel. Located in Ca...

The Ascendant Man

How can we distance ourselves from Man as Animal? So much of
what we do, the choices we make, our opinions, our aspirations, have in fact
nothing to do with our individual personalities. They are instead reactions to
primal instincts, ingrained in our behavior from the time we were not just
hunters but hunted. If we are conscious of these internal, genetic, and
biological influences, can we escape them? Would we be happier, calmer, more
fulfilled if we did? Or would the friction between ourselves and the society
around us be too great? What would a society built on this knowledge look like?

We now know a great deal about the psychology of our minds
and emotions, the irrationality of our economic choices, the genetic causes of
our addictions, the scientific negation of our racism, the universal human
creature beyond national, cultural, or spatial factors. We are learning more
every day through genetics, epigenetics, psychology, statistics, economics, and
increased cross-cultural communication. We can speak instantly to any human on
any point of the planet through satellite communications, making understanding
common. We can translate nearly any language, making knowledge universal. The
internet holds the entire wealth of human knowledge since the beginning of
time, making knowledge accessible. The more information we have, the more we
understand just what makes humans tick, and at no other time in history have we
had so much information.

And yet… despite all that knowledge, must of us remain
ignorant. We cling to folklore and “common sense”. We take the word of previous
generations over scientists. We listen to people who make us feel good, or
right, or strong, choosing the package of the message over the message itself.
We abhor dispassionate information, especially if it requires us to spend time
dissecting it. We want sound bites, not the whole meal. And even this, we have
discovered, is normal. What can we accomplish when we take a step beyond
normal?

We have adopted such new ideas as Democracy, something
non-existent throughout most of history. We accept that the earth is round,
that gravity holds us to it, and that humans are equal (however poorly we
practice it). Much of the products we use in life descend from the scientific
method, something in which evolutionary thought is embedded whether we like it
or not. Will it be that difficult to accept that we now know ourselves?

For example, we know enough about our emotions, now, to be
able to factor them out of rational decision making. I’m not asking for the
dominance of rational thought over emotion. Emotion has a place; it is the
spice of life. But emotion, especially on issues of life-or-death importance,
must be understood for what it is – an impediment to making the correct choice.
We see this on a global scale with nuclear proliferation, energy insecurity,
the existence of global warming, the decision to start wars, the pricing of
health care, and international trade. We see it in our daily lives with our
poor time management skills, dissatisfaction with work, inability to manage our
finances, and broken relationships.

In short, humans are controlled by instinctive, bodily
events which are usually the cause of our emotional perspective. This emotion
is what gives us our legacy systems – the perpetuation of ideas unsupported by
facts, yet nevertheless far more pervasive and influential even when those
facts are brought to light. Those legacy
systems, such as morality, the sense of right and wrong, were established when
we had no empirical evidence of what is actually right or wrong. The more we
rely on those legacy systems to lead us, the longer we will remain astray.

My favorite example is sex before marriage. This is
traditionally considered immoral, or wrong. In ancient times, there were two
very good, rational reasons for it being wrong. The first was the likelihood of
a single, unwed mother. Not only would this be a hardship on the woman herself,
but in many societies the woman would never marry and thus deprive her entire
family with both a male income earner and further children. Second, women in
pre-medical societies had a 25% chance of dying in childbirth – meaning
premarital sex was tantamount to attempted murder/suicide!

Enter modern society: proper prevention such as
prophylactics and birth control pills make unwanted children a near
impossibility. Add in social welfare systems, changing family patterns,
antibiotics, and proper medical facilities, and you’ve eliminated 99% of the
downside of premarital sex. Modern advances have changed the playing field, yet
our legacy system of decision making has barely budged. We still look down on
pre-marital sex, even punishable by death in some societies. We still feel a
twinge of shame in the midst of it, or refrain from telling others of it. That
moral legacy still haunts the activity.

So why does the practice persist despite moral condemnation?
Because we are not in control: the body wills it. Consider this: it wasn’t too
hard to hold back on pre-marital sex in the old days. Couples married when they
were biologically ready to bear children, at age 12. Educated, upwardly mobile,
career minded modern couples marry much, much later, meaning the time they
would need to deny their biological impulses might equal the entire average
lifespan of pre-modern humans (age 33). That’s asking a lot, even on moral
grounds.

So we have several factors at work – morality trumping
scientific change, and the body trumping morality. No wonder such discussions
are rife with conflict! Couldn’t the whole issue be solved by abolishing the
legacy system in light of our understanding of the underlying forces both mitigating
and perpetuating the practice?

So how can we reconcile ancient wisdom with scientific
facts, legacy with modernity, morality with reality? It won’t be easy. Legacy
has it’s grip very deep in our psyche. One can’t overturn a lifetime of
prejudice with a sudden new scientific insight. In fact, as with other major
social changes like racism and women’s rights, the only way forward might be
through the slow expiration of prior, resistant generations. Each successive
generation adopts the best practices of their time. For thousands of years,
there were few changes in that information. With the entirety of human
knowledge at their fingertips for the first time in human history, it will be
interesting to watch today’s children grow, and see the resultant humanity.

The best way to proceed is to promote the scientific method
in children, the belief that something is true only when it has measurable,
replicable results. The more this way of thought is advanced, the more
efficient, prosperous, and correct are the outcomes. I would be remiss without
addressing the primary opposition to this process – faith based systems. In the
example above, faith dominates the perpetuation of this moral legacy. To many
people, faith and morality are synonymous. So it must be mentioned that the
pursuit of a more scientifically correct society need not occur at the cost of
faith. The majority of scientists, and those working in scientific fields, are
men and women of faith. This should not be a battle between our gods and ourselves.
This must not be a battle at all. It should be, instead, a quest, an adventure,
the pursuit of our ultimate potential.

If you think life is good now, wait till you see what we can
become! Without the legacy systems of war, disease, prejudice, and philosophical
perception, we can create a world in which each person finds the best life for
him or herself rather than have that dictated to them by their forefathers. The
solution doesn’t require money or power, politicians or pundits, sacrifice or
struggle. It only requires that we each learn why we think what we think and
then pause to consider our next step forward.

We often define the difference between humans and animals as
our rational ability to make a choice that transcends instinct. In some ways, this
will be the first time in our lives, in history, we’ve ever made that choice.